RAMNIVAS SARDA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No. 45 of 1984 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of the 2nd petitioner proprietary concern. The petitioners were convicted under Section 7(1) r/w Section 2(ia) and A & C, Appendix B, C1.A.17.22 of A.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. On appeal in Crl. A.No.311 of 1990 the IIIrd Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirmed the conviction and sentences. Questioning that order the Crl. R.C. is filed.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sri R. Krishnamohan Rao, then VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has recorded the evidence and examined the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 28-3-90. Subsequently, he was transferred by orders dt. 13-4-90 and his successor Sri. M. Rajender heard the arguments and pronounced the judgment. Since under Section 16-A of P.F.A.Act all the offences under Section 161 of P.F.A.Act shall be tried in summary way by Judl. 1 st Class Magistrate and in accordance with Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C, the offence with which the petitioners are charged has been tried summarily and in accordance. with Sections 262 to 265 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate who records the evidence shall pronounce the judgment in view of Section 326(3) Cr.P.C. Failure of the said procedure would vitiate the entire trial.

(3.) Sub-section (3) of Section 326 Cr.P.C. clearly says that in cases of summary trials, the procedure contemplated Under Section 326(1) Cr.P.C i.e.. any succeeding Judge can complete the recording of evidence and pronouncement of Judgment, will not apply. In this case it is evident from the docket sheet of the case and other records that on 17-4-90 it is recorded by the learned Magistrate "Accused present. As I am, under orders of transfer the case is reopened. Post for arguments, Call on 2-5-90." The endorsement on the docket dt. 2-5-90 is